Proposed Regulation Changes for ODWC

[okievarmint]

IMO, your 3rd year harvest will never fly. I'm not going to say it doesn't work, but I don't think it will ever happen. Just because it may work doesn't mean it is the right thing to do either. There are areas of the state that depend on hunting season to make money. Down here in Antlers, the local economy depends on the hunting season to make it through the year. Not necessarily with income from leases, but just out of area money flowing in from all of the people coming in to hunt. You kill that for even one year, and that is going to have a major impact on the economy. So while it may help with letting the bucks age another year, the results effect people that don't even hunt and that right there is enough to make me never support the idea, and I think all the people in this area at least would agree. We've already got some of the oldest deer in the state running the hills down here. I'll be damned if I ever support anyone telling me I can't hunt them. Just my 2 cents...

Never said you couldn't hunt them. I'm saying for improved quality, and quantity of the hunt, let a buck walk every third year. Instead of 'old deer' you would have more 'big old deer'. We as hunters need to be concerned with more than just 'The kill'. I believe in the hunters of Oklahoma. I believe there are enough of those in the Hunting Community, that are not short-sighted and selfish, that know people depend on their dollar, and they would continue to hunt and spend money there. Southeastern Oklahoma would still be crowded every deer season, even if it were a doe only year. For those that would choose to not participate, there are many more waiting to fill his spot. Many hunters do not hunt just because they cannot find a place to hunt. I wish I could let more people hunt my place. Everyone that hunts my place come every year. Why? They are participating in 'Management', and don't whine about not killing a buck. The memory and re-telling of the thrill of watching a monster buck on a food plot, chasing a doe, working a scrape, or slinking through and not killing him, has become almost as big a deal here as a 'kill'. They are letting smaller bucks walk on 'off years', because they know there are bigger and better. There has not been a tag go unfilled on my place in 10 years or more, other than me. I did not even carry a gun this year, I hunted with my granddaughter. Don't focus on not killing a buck every third year, but killing a better buck the other two.

 

[r00s7a]

Never said you couldn't hunt them.

By implementing your "third year" plan, then yes, you are telling me every third year I cannot hunt a buck. Is that not part of the plan, that every third year you cannot shoot a buck?

I admire the fact that this plan is done with quality deer in mind, I guess I don't have as much faith in the hunter and hunting community as you do. I am a realist, and I think when you tell a man he can't hunt a buck for a year, he's not going to agree or be for it. When you tell me that, #1- I cannot hunt a buck every third year, #2- As a taxidermist you are taking away nearly all of my income every third year, and #3- as a community you are taking away a chunk of our tourist income from hunting related activities, there is no way I'd support it. And when it comes down to it, who is being more selfish? You taking away a third of my income just so you can shoot a bigger buck, or me because I don't agree with a plan that takes away from others? Like I said, I think you are on the right track, I just don't feel that the third year plan is the way to get there.

 

[okievarmint]

By implementing your "third year" plan, then yes, you are telling me every third year I cannot hunt a buck. Is that not part of the plan, that every third year you cannot shoot a buck?

I admire the fact that this plan is done with quality deer in mind, I guess I don't have as much faith in the hunter and hunting community as you do. I am a realist, and I think when you tell a man he can't hunt a buck for a year, he's not going to agree or be for it. When you tell me that, #1- I cannot hunt a buck every third year, #2- As a taxidermist you are taking away nearly all of my income every third year, and #3- as a community you are taking away a chunk of our tourist income from hunting related activities, there is no way I'd support it. And when it comes down to it, who is being more selfish? You taking away a third of my income just so you can shoot a bigger buck, or me because I don't agree with a plan that takes away from others? Like I said, I think you are on the right track, I just don't feel that the third year plan is the way to get there.

Not arguing semantics, but I'm still not telling you not to hunt a buck, just don't kill him that year, kill him next year. You are a full time taxidermist that makes almost all your income on local bucks? Skin-slidin' in Southeast Oklahoma is a lot better than I was led to believe. A fellow taxidermist from your area that frequents a forum I go on, was callin' it quits a short time ago. They did excellent work, wasn't deer only, but said there just wasn't enough business. Sorry you disagree with the plan, but I know it would work. Not being selfish at all, because it would increase quality and quantity of bucks and that would mean more dollars in an area that depends as much on buck harvest as you say. A person that kills a larger buck is more apt to have it mounted. From your money standpoint, try not to focus on the one year a buck is not killed, but look to the years larger and more bucks are. In many parts of the Country, there was a time when there were very few deer, deer popultaions increased, and many businesses were formed to cater to deer hunters. In some of these same areas deer populations have decreased, and some businesses have closed. Have you had off years? I'm saying increase the number and quality of bucks, and your economy will grow enough to MORE than make up for it, and then some. Like I said, it would be danged unpopular, especially to those that can only think about themselves and right now, but try to look to the future.

 

[okievarmint]

Again, great discussion. Thanks r00s7a and Allout for at least listening. Hopefully there are those that are scratchin' their chin saying, "Maybe I'll try that." Even if they just do it individually, it would give 'one' buck at least another year. Thanks again.
Earl Russell
'okievarmint'

 

[r00s7a]

I am not a taxidermist, that is just for the sake of argument, but I do know several in the area that make a good portion of their living doing that. This is a poor area, it doesn't take 50K a year to get by.

To each his own, that's the whole purpose of this thread, discussing pros and cons. Who knows, we might see your idea on a ballot someday! I will vote against it, but it isn't anything personal.

 

[Oklahomabassin]

Instead of the every 3rd year not shooting a buck, I practice not shooting a buck unless its 3.5 or older. Works great!

 

[AllOut]

Instead of the every 3rd year not shooting a buck, I practice not shooting a buck unless its 3.5 or older. Works great!

Exactly! If everyone would at least try this we would be much better off. When 70% of our yearly harvest is 1.5 yo bucks, something is very wrong.

As for my Kansas statement, I stand by it and could prove it very easily. I hunt and have hunted some of the best areas in our state. However I also bow hunt Kansas every year and have for a while. We hunt mainly public in Kansas, we have plenty of private to hunt but don't cause our public spots have produced beter for us. On the Kansas public I hunt and have hunted, I've seen and had more opertunities at VERY large bucks then I ever have in Oklahoma. Ive heard that sob story from a lot of guys about how deer hunting in Kansas is going down the crapper. But Ive seen it with my own eyes over the last 5 or 6 years. We see just as many big bucks now as we did when we first went there, the deer hunting is still great there. That claim is by locals who are just trying to grip about it being easier for non residents now and it's ruined Kansas. Trust me I was a Kansas resident for 2 years and all those guys do is try and deter anyone from hunting there.

 

[dennishoddy]

That claim is by locals who are just trying to grip about it being easier for non residents now and it's ruined Kansas. Trust me I was a Kansas resident for 2 years and all those guys do is try and deter anyone from hunting there.

We hear the same claim by Okies that hunt Kaw WMA about the Kansas hunters that are the majority of hunters, in that area. In reality, I can check the local check stations (before the phone in program) and see several bucks in the 190 lb weight class or larger that are taken from public ground that is heavily hunted. I'm sure the complaints are by people that are not willing to walk the mile or two and get away from the hunters that park and hunt 50 yds from the truck.

I will say a couple of years ago on Kaw, I was driving through the WMA and saw a really nice buck I would call a trophy exit the woods 20 yds from a truck parked on the side of the road and go to private ground. It was three days into the season, so you just never know.

 

[mr ed]

More restrictions hurt us non-rich hunters and reduce the number of hunters which hurts the ODW pocketbook.
More restrictions will only increase poaching.
$20 doe tag and $50 buck tag would be better. Don't want to pay it ? Buy a lifetime license.
Only got to go 7 times this year thru all seasons and would have taken the first deer available. Only saw 6 deer (all does) and couldn't make a 200 yard bow shot.

A lot of you talk about other states and their big deer. I would like to see info on how many locals shoot these giant deer and how many are shot by out of staters. Colorado for example has few locals hunting and gears towards out of staters and their big $.
More restrictions will do that to Okla.
I can't afford a $500 lease let alone a $10k one but that seems the way we are headed.